It says a lot about Alabama politics when a U.S. Supreme Court decision on one little fraud law can generate such interest. But Alabama did have a lot riding on what the nation's highest court concluded about so-called "honest services" fraud. The sad fact is, we've had too many corrupt public officials prosecuted under that law not to be concerned.

To cite just a few examples, the law was used in the cases against former Gov. Don Siegelman, former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and former state Sen. E.B. McClain.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit former Gov. Don Siegelman's case.

Although the court did not toss out the law entirely, justices did restrict the way it could be used, saying it should apply only in cases involving kickbacks and bribes. After doing so, the Supreme Court ordered the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit Siegelman's case to see whether it is affected by the new interpretation of the law.

Not surprisingly, Siegelman's lawyers found hope in the turn of events. Who can blame them? But it's not clear yet whether the hopes are justified.

In upholding most of the case against Siegelman and the entire case against co-defendant Richard Scrushy, the 11th Circuit already has held that the charges indeed involved bribery, albeit in the form of campaign contributions. Unless the appellate judges change their perspective on that point, or the Supreme Court intervenes, Siegelman's jubilation may be short-lived.

Some of the other high-profile Alabama defendants almost certainly have no reason to celebrate the Supreme Court's decision. Langford's case clearly constituted regular old bribery, for instance, and McClain's case involved kickbacks.

Then again, hope springs eternal. Former state Rep. Sue Schmitz' lawyer said the court's decision might help her cause. Schmitz was not even charged under the law making it a crime to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Perhaps the real hope is that the court's decision indicates it will take a narrow view of what constitutes criminal misconduct by public officials. It's not hard to see why. In criticizing "honest services" fraud in the past, for instance, Justice Antonin Scalia has referred to "headline-grabbing prosecutors" who pursue "local officials, state legislators and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct."

This is unsettling territory, in our view.

Without a doubt, public officials who are charged with crimes should have the same legal protections as anyone else. They shouldn't be prosecuted under laws that don't meet constitutional requirements, including laws that are overly broad or vague, as many believed the "honest services" statute to be.

At the same time, we don't relish the prospect of public officials getting more latitude to engage in mischief. After all, politicians can engage in elaborate schemes to enrich themselves without taking outright bribes or kickbacks. It isn't exactly fair for this kind of conduct to be written off as merely "unappealing" or "ethically questionable," while stealing a candy bar is a crime.

After the Supreme Court signaled it would look at the "honest services" fraud law, federal prosecutors in Alabama downplayed the possible impact of an adverse ruling. They said public corruption cases almost always include a range of charges, not just "honest services" fraud, and they said their work would continue with or without that provision.

Let's hope so. While there absolutely were valid complaints about the "honest services" law, there would have been a lot less to fuss about if more of our public officials had been more focused on providing honest services in the first place.